The President of Employment Tribunals has issued a practice direction. This stays (i.e. puts on hold) tribunal claims arising from the recent Supreme Court decision abolishing tribunal fees. These will be claims to be entitled to pursue a claim that the claimant could not pursue through inability to pay the fee or obtain remission.

The stay applies pending guidance from the Ministry of Justice. Why do I get the feeling that there will be another judicial review?

I have yet to read the case, but am content that it was indeed a horrible, vicious mistake.Even so, it suggests a real change whih will be omplicated and needs to be planned and gotten right. It was thinking that there was a quick fix to a problem (unmeritorious claims) which led to the current difficulty in the first place.

dls wrote:It was thinking that there was a quick fix to a problem (unmeritorious claims) which led to the current difficulty in the first place.

I suggest that it was not the unmeritorious claims themselves, but the Tribunal's incompetence in dealing with claims in general, and the general reluctance to recognise a problem.You know of my case: everything needed to properly decide the case was contained in the claim and the response, but it was mired in difficulty simply because the first judge to look at it did not make note of what they had read and the second judge did not bother to read it at all.The subsequent seven years were predominantly dealing with that initial mire.And throughout and beyond, all my complaints about the failings of the administration were dismissed as sour grapes.

Why do you feel the need to make that suggestion? Do you think the example provided is not an example of the reasons why the tribunals were getting mired in cases?I would very much like to hear your explanations on that.

atticus wrote:You are of course right and the Employment Judge and High Court Judge hearing your appeal were both wrong.

They were, but that is entirely beside the point. Their struggling in the mire was entirely understandable.

But none of that was a reason for the misguided introduction of fees which have now been abolished. For those reasons, read the Supreme Court judgment.

This bit?

9. In January 2011 the Government published a paper entitled Resolving Workplace Disputes: A Consultation, in which it announced its intention to introduce fee-charging into ETs and the EAT. Charging fees was considered to be desirable for three reasons. First, and most importantly, fees would help to transfer some of the cost burden from general taxpayers to those that used the system, or caused the system to be used. Secondly, a price mechanism could incentivise earlier settlements. Thirdly, it could dis-incentivise unreasonable behaviour, such as pursuing weak or vexatious claims.

I suggest that if the tribunals were more efficient then the cost burden would be far less of an issue.